I found the Australian National Placenames Suveys site that has links to the various states naming departments. Don’t know how useful some of the departments would be though.
We use localities here in QLD.
Yes I have one near Mackay. There is suburb called Richmond there but way to the west there is the township of Richmond (not to mention the townshup of Richmond in NSW!)
For the Mackay example rightly or wrongly I have named that “Richmond, QLD, 4740”
Gav…
We have no convention for duplicate localities within QLD, however I support using the postcode, it’s shorter than the council name.
Firstly, Awesome effort!
Secondly, I support both your suggestions.
Gav…
Keep in mind that there is a school of thought to remove suburbs altogether
This is a extract of a conversation with “Shani” Waze HQ
I think its all a bit academic (Going around in circles)
The real problem is Waze needs add more address fields.
In NZ we have just thrown up our hands and just use Google search on the Waze client (works perfect)
Lets look at your proposed example
I have no idea where any of those places are. If I search for example “Ascot” I will get
Ascot, QLD 4007
Ascot, QLD 4359
Ascot, VIC 3364
Ascot, VIC 3551
Which one do I choose? They all look very similar. From what I can gather the only real advantage is stopping smudges?
Just remove suburbs and your double ups would be reduced, I doubt that you would have duplicate cities in the same state (No doubt somebody will prove me wrong
)
Far quicker clicking the Google button
wrong (To the best of my understanding)
When you search (Google button on the waze client) its finds the closest match and returns a GPS point like
-27.969616,152.545159
Waze will then find the closest segment and routes to that point.
As an experiment (only tested on Android) on your smart phone on your phone contacts add the above GPS in the address section then try to navigate using waze (It will only work if your under 1000km from the GPS point which is 25 Frazerview Rd, Aratula QLD, Australia)
My point is “Google Search” will work without suburbs
The “Waze search” will not work but I don’t think it ever will until extra fields are added and there is a bulk import of street numbers.
as stated above
Church St, Goodna QLD 4300
Church St, Kippa-Ring QLD 4021
Church St, Tivoli QLD 4305
Church St, Caboolture South QLD 4510
Church St, Silkstone QLD 4304
Church St, Beenleigh QLD 4207
Church St, Victoria Point QLD 4165
Church St, Redbank QLD 4301
Church St, Samford Village QLD 4520
I guess you missed my point, you need the full address to search but the Waze road segment don’t need segments labelled fully because it uses GPS points.
e.g Google search
Church St, Samford Village QLD 4520
returns
-27.368542,152.886659
Waze translates this to (Waze stuffed this up many years ago)
152.886659,-27.368542
This gets entered into the waze client as here

https://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=17&lat=-27.36854&lon=152.88666
or
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&zoom=3&lat=-27.36854&lon=152.88666&layers=1413
My point is all this would still work using only the real city in the “city field” and “street” only
You do need the full address but Waze dose not when using the Google button
This information is based on my personal trials and assumptions (a test to double check would not be hard)
Having said all that I doubt that I would get much support for the concept in Australia. ![]()
I’m just putting it out there. ![]()
In New Zealand “Wellington”
UK wiki
Use which ever is biggest. city, town or village name
Just to clarify, you only propose this format where double ups exist or every time?
Church St, Goodna QLD 4300
Where do you propose to source this information from?
What source of information did you use to compile that list from?
You need to check copyright, most sources/sites don’t allow coping, we need references, even government web sites.
Form the waze wiki
Please note that all contributions to waze are considered to be released under the CC BY 2.5 (see waze:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
can you link any sites/sources that allow you to use this information?
Just for interest I looked up NZpost
http://www.nzpost.co.nz/about-us/who-we-are/terms-of-business/website-terms-conditions
Intellectual property rights
We hold all copyright and other intellectual property rights in the website and all content on the website, unless the content is identified as being the property of another party. You may reproduce (electronically or in hard copy) and use our content for your personal use only. In all other circumstances you must get our written consent before reproducing or otherwise using our content. If you wish to use any third party content identified as such on the website you must obtain the prior consent of the relevant owner. This includes content of websites you access via links from the website.
I don’t want to get into a debate about copyright but I think this is relevant itujar: (again awesome job compiling the list!) http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/407808054537e86bfec33b.pdf
Anyway on to the topic at hand. Whilst I see ispyisail’s point that if you just do a google search in the Waze client then you need nothing other that the street names because that is all the client uses to give the directions.
However, while ispyisail states that in NZ they “have just thrown up our hands and just use Google search”. I am not sure how in practice you get this information to all the new users of Waze who just start using it and when they select “Navigate” are given the Waze search by default.
Given that the Waze search is the default it would make sense to ensure that a valid location is returned. Whilst I always use the Google search now I didn’t at the beginning. A failure to return a valid result will just see people abandoning the app as it fails to do its basic function.
Also a huge effort has already been undertaken to ensure that the “city” (or suburb etc) names are accurate so what purpose would it serve to abandon that effort if a simple (now that itujar has done all the work!) look up of a wiki page would allow someone to populate with the correct place name?
So again whilst I completely agree with the fact that if you do a google search the city name is not required the fact that we already have all the city names populated (albeit with amendments needed inplaces) why not continue on as we are with better guidance/rules in place?
You mean like “The Victorian Local Government Annual Survey 2010-2011 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work and abide by the other licence terms.”?
I think you will find this is incomparable with the terms and conditions of using waze.
https://www.waze.com/legal/copyright
I’m not a lawyer either but I think I would be fair to say you would need to get written permission from your source and then double check with Waze.
From my understanding when you add content to waze you are giving waze exclusive ownership which is incompatible with opensource licences. From my understanding that’s why they didn’t uses a openstreetmap as a base import.
We had the same problem when trying to label state highways. We need to make our own map, not copy.
I need to go to work but I want to answer some of the other questions/statements…